E.J. Bellie, President

1. The opposite party-Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivakasi, against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant.

2. The complainant is a tenant doing business in the premises No. 33-A at North Street, Sivakasi. The owner of the premises was one M.G. Kathiresan. The case of the complainant appears to be is that for the periods 11/94,1/95, 3/95 and 5/95 he has paid a current consumption charge of Rs. 280/- @ minimum consumption charge of Rs. 70/- per period. The opposite party had taken meter reading on 24.7.1995 and had noted that for the 5 periods there had been a consumption of 95 units. On this basis they have calculated the current consumption charge and after deducting the amount of Rs. 280/- paid by the complainant, he had been directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 294/-. But the meter reading of 95 units is not correct and excessive and the complainant had not consumed that much of electricity. For all the 4 periods of 11/94, 1/95, 3/95 and 5/95, the opposite party never came for meter reading and they have falsely stated that the door was locked. Since the complainant had not paid the amount as directed by the opposite party, the electricity service connection has been disconnected by the opposite party. This amounts to deficiency in service on their part. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to give reconnection and also to pay compensation.

3. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the District Forum cannot enquire into the complaint. When the opposite party went for meter reading, the door was locked and, therefore, the meter reading could not be done. When the meter reading was done on 24.7.1995, it showed 95 units for the 5 periods. Therefore the complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 294/- being the balance amount of the current consumption charges after deducting a sum of Rs. 280/- paid by the complainant. Since he had not paid the consumption charges, the service connection was disconnected on 18.8.1995. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence held that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, believed his case and held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and it further held that the opposite party shall give reconnection and also to pay a damages of Rs. 3,000/-.

5. Now in the appeal, after careful consideration of the matter, we find it difficult to uphold the order of the District Forum as correct. It is common case that the opposite parties have done the meter reading on 24.7.1995. While according to the opposite parties, the meter reading was 95 units for the 5 periods, the complainant would say that he had not consumed that much of electric energy. And while it is the case of the opposite party that when they went for meter reading, the door was locked and, therefore, for the previous 4 periods, the meter reading could not be done, according to the complainant it appears that the opposite party never came for meter reading and the energy consumed by him was very low but a minimum current consumption charge @ Rs. 70 /- per period had been collected from him. The complainant has to prove this case of his. But there is no evidence for that. In these circumstances, we cannot believe the case of the complainant and disbelieve the case of the opposite parties. Thus the case of the complainant stands unproved. In this position, it cannot held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the disconnection was wrongful.

6. Apart from this, there is another circumstance in view of which the complaint cannot be maintained in law. It is the case of the complainant himself that he was not the owner of the premises or the service connection but he was only a tenant in the premises. Therefore, he is not a consumer as the one who has availed of the services of the opposite party, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Now Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act reads as follows:-

"12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.-

A complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum, by-

(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed to be provided;

(b) any recognised consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not;

(c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit, all consumers so interested; or

(d) the Central or the State Government."

A reading of Clause (a) alongwith the main part of the Section would clearly show that in respect of services, only the consumer to whom the service is provided or agreed to be provided can file a complaint. In our case, the owner of the premises is the person to whom the service has been provided and that being the case only he can file the complaint. The present complainant is admittedly a tenant in the premises. There is no ag

reement between the opposite parties and this complainant/tenant. May be as a user of the electricity, he is a beneficiary and as such he is a consumer. But nevertheless, when the question arises as to who can file a complaint, under Section 12 only the owner of the premises can file a complaint and not the tenant/complainant. Therefore, it follows that the present complaint cannot be held to be maintainable in law. 7. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed; the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.